/lit/ - Literature

I don't see why not!

This could get more people interested in Plato seeing it performed dramatically and would be a great source for entertainment for people who are already fans.

Furthermore, this could be an effective tool in philosophy classes in college to put together a Platonic dialogue dramatically and could even be a part of public schooling as a means to introduce philosophy to the curriculum by engaging pupils.

Thoughts?

>>17046043
>public school
AYYYOOOOOO DIS YT BICH WAN ME SAY WUT? NIQQA PLEEZ

You are absolutely right, however. There's actually a mini-series that does this with the dinner party in Symposium, albeit without the whole "gay sex" thing. Movies, or series, depicting philosophical dialogue in a clever manner would be a fantastic idea.

>>17046019
>Without embarking on an inquiry into the mystery just mooted, we yet must call to mind the distinction between the modern culture-poet and the naive poet of the ancient world. The latter was in the first place an inventor of Myths, then their word-of-mouth narrator in the Epos, and finally their personal performer in the living Drama. Plato was the first to adopt all three poetic forms for his "dialogues," so filled with dramatic life and so rich in myth-invention; and these scenes of his may be regarded as the foundation—nay, in the poet-philosopher's glorious "Symposium," the model unapproached—of strictly literary poetry, which always leans to the didactic. Here the forms of naive poetry are merely employed to set philosophic theses in a quasi-popular light, and conscious tendence takes the place of the directly-witnessed scene from life. To extend this "Tendence" to the acted drama, must have appeared to our great culture-poets the surest mode of elevating the existing popular play; and in this they may have been misled by certain features of the Antique Drama. The Tragedy of the Greeks having [139] evolved from a compromise between the Apollinian and the Dionysian elements, upon the basis of a system of Lyrics wellnigh past our understanding, the didactic hymn of the old-Hellenian priests could combine with the newer Dionysian dithyramb to produce that enthralling effect in which this artwork stands unrivalled. Now the fact of the Apollinian element in Greek Tragedy, regarded as a literary monument, having attracted to itself the principal notice in every age, and particularly of philosophers and didacts, may reasonably have betrayed our later poets—who also chiefly viewed these tragedies as literary products—into the opinion that in this didactic tendence lay the secret of the antique drama's dignity, and. consequently into the belief that the existing popular drama was only to be raised and idealised by stamping it therewith. Their true artistic instinct saved them from sacrificing living Drama to Tendence bald and bare: but what was to put soul into this Drama, to lift it on the cothurnus of ideality, they deemed could only be the purposed elevation of its tendence; and that the more, as their sole disposable material, namely Word-speech, the vehicle of notions (Begriffe), seemed to exclude the feasibility, or even the advisability, of an ennoblement and heightening of expression on any side but this. The lofty sentence alone could match the higher tendence; and to impress the hearer's physical sense, unquestionably excited by the drama, recourse must be had to so-called poetic diction.
- Wagner

>>17046019
My instinct is a strong yes, but my worry is that because it is a performance, there is no being able to read the text as you go along. I would imagine that they could just give students copies, but that would be a hassle, and nobody would read as they watch.

>>17046212
Does it matter?

I'm sure philosophical aspects can be retained through a simple observation, and if in a school environment it could work as a nice introduction to the text and ideas before actually studying them..

>>17047729
I see your point, but it would certainly be nice to have the text in front of you. Also, not everyone understands as quickly as others, so pacing is really an issue that plays don't suffer from. Students could be given the text first, then the actual dialogue played out second after the initial studying.

>>17046160
>Plato is the artistic inheritor of Greek tragedy into the purely literary and ostensibly philosophical
Based Wagner.

I like that Plato shows us the rough work of how he arrived at his thoughts but I never like the fact that he wrote characters whose only contribution is to agree with him, it's like adding a laugh track to jokes

This sounds like an entertaining idea for a /lit/ project

>>17049857
>implying Plato only wrote characters who agreed with him well
Have you not read the Symposium?

>>17049874
I want to play Aristophanes, then I can be theatrically funny and talk weird.

>>17049881
I was thinking more like Meno where it may as well just be Plato writing an essay

Meno is just there to say
>wow Socrates you're so smart, that's absolutely right

>>17046019
or better yet, why not anime? of course we'll have to change the gender and costume of Plato and Socrates but it'd attract a whole new generation

>>17049951
As long as we can fit a few giant robots and a tsundere in there somewhere it can work

>>17049933
Meno as a dialogue on the whole is definitely not just a stupid character getting told the truth; but furthermore it leads to the Plato's proper development of the dialogue in works such as the mentioned Symposium. I don't see how you can say that Plato only wrote his characters with the purpose to agree with him, especially his very late works. Which really are more than anything the posing of the question (without deepening that remark in the slightest). Often Socrates gets btfo'd in them, or they arrive at no truth which is just "my philosophy."

I'm sure, to not touch on the thousand manifold other values of all of Plato's dialogues, you can see how even such an early dialogue as the Meno is enormously important and brilliant. For, to light on another thing, it shows what the philosopher is. Not just "philosophy," and to put it more even more bluntly because of the shortness of the reply, is not just making a purely logico-descriptive account of an idea or ideas.

He's not a modern by any means, and one can only wonder how Aristotle's dialogues compared with Plato's brilliance. Cicero did after all call Plato's prose silver and Aristotle's "flowing rivers of Gold."

>>17049933
Also refer to this post >>17046160

>>17049969
>I don't see how you can say that Plato only wrote his characters with the purpose to agree with him, especially his very late works

I didn't, read my post again. YOU said that here
>>17049881 but it's a misquote

>>17049978
And I quote:

>I like that Plato shows us the rough work of how he arrived at his thoughts but I never like the fact that he wrote characters whose only contribution is to agree with him, it's like adding a laugh track to jokes

You said it right here. Plato's dialogues are not just showing a rational conclusion or evolution of his ideas, as I said before, they're getting to something much deeper and more technically and artistically organised than one first realises on a read.

>>17049978
>>17049997
Nvm, I see what you mean now. But my point still remains about the Meno and similar works.

>>17049997
>he wrote characters whose only contribution is to agree with him

This is not mean he ONLY wrote characters who agreed with him

>there are cows in the field
Does not mean
>all the cows in the world are in the field
Nor does it mean
>there are exclusively cows in the field and nothing else

>>17050030
SEE >>17050004

>>17050041
I don't agree about Meno, I find Platos logic regarding remembering data you haven't learned to be unconvincing, it's seems to assume that it's impossible for someone to just rationally deduce something

>>17050066
That may be true anon, but I don't see how you disagreeing with the ideas relates to the use of the dialogue form itself, specifically in the case of the Meno.

>>17050078
Dialogue as a concept to help the reader through the argument is fine

I'm saying that in the case of Meno it's not done in an especially necessary or helpful way

>>17050089
>Dialogue as a concept to help the reader through the argument is fine
But that's not the singular purpose of the dialogue use. I just said this.

>>17046093
Watch the Sunset Limited

>>17050101
When did I say that was the only use? This is the same issue as before

Your previous argument was that Meno is
>enormously important and brilliant
Because it shows a philosopher arguing a philosophical point

So it's good because Plato spoonfeeds the reader with the undigested form of his ideas as they develop? I don't really agree

Als you mentioned that they're much deeper on a technical/artistic level than initially appears. I also disagree here, Meno is a plain conversation between Not Plato and an NPC that Not Plato is attracted to. Not Plato makes arguments and NPC tells him how amazing it is

>>17050124
>When did I say that was the only use? This is the same issue as before
I'm literally not saying that rn.

Your entire post is either a purposeful shitpost or you've just not bothered much to read my posts. I don't think there's a single claim you make in this post about me or what I said that's true. Literally reread my posts.

>>17050124
>Because it shows a philosopher arguing a philosophical point
And to clarify this, Plato is putting philosophy in respect to the philosopher. As I ALREADY explained, he's not just trying to describe his ideas.

>>17050150
Claim:
>I'm literally not saying that rn.
What you said:
>But that's not the singular purpose of the dialogue use.
>What you were responding to:
>Dialogue as a concept to help the reader through the argument is fine

Similar to before, I said
>X has Y use case
You replied with
>Y isn't the only use case of X
Which is not the claim I made

>>17050171
>he's not just trying to describe his ideas.

Again, I didn't say he was.

You're getting mad that I'm describing what you said previously justifying why you life Meno and disagreeing with it. If you feel I've misrepresented your reasons please feel free to describe the more clearly

>blah blah blah you're being dishonest

Why, because I disagreed with you?

>>17050182
>Claim:
>>I'm literally not saying that rn.
>What you said:
>>But that's not the singular purpose of the dialogue use.
>>What you were responding to:
>>Dialogue as a concept to help the reader through the argument is fine
>Similar to before, I said
>>X has Y use case
>You replied with
>>Y isn't the only use case of X
>Which is not the claim I made
WHY ARE YOU SINGLING IN ON THE DIALOGUE BEING A "CONCEPT TO HELP THE READER THROUGH THE ARGUMENT"???????

I HAVE TO DO ALL THE THINKING AS TO WHY YOU'RE EVEN WRITING SOMETHING. I HAVE TO JUSTIFY WHY YOU'RE EVEN WRITING SOMETHING. WHAT ARE YOU EVEN TRYING TO SAY?????

I say
>Plato's Meno is more complex than just a treatise expressing certain abstract ideas like today
And you've continually rejected this statement while disingenuously pretending as if you haven't. You reply
>but the ideas in it are stupid!
I explain
>but we're not talking about the ideas in it, we're talking about Plato's entire dialogue format and choice to use it. Which is also brilliant.
You reply
>Dialogue as a concept to help the reader through the argument is fine
Why even write this? This isn't even something that particularly comes to mind when one thinks about the reason for the dialogue form. You then continue:
>I'm saying that in the case of the Meno it's not done in an especially necessary or helpful way
This is when you repeat your past problems for the hundredth time here. You're completely rejecting any of the more important validations of Plato's brilliance in the Meno, just to judge the dialogue as a "handholder" and therefore not helpful in what it's supposed to do. And you completely ignore the fact that you just mistook our question about the value of the dialogue method specifically but not in the Meno alone, for the truth of the ideas in it. Trying to hide this, you referred back to the nature of the dialogue, but then not even a relevant frame of it.

I reply rightfully:
>But that's not the singular purpose of the dialogue use. I just said this.
Because it's just stupid to use that, how it "helps one better understand the argument," as how to value the dialogue form.

>Why, because I disagreed with you?
No, you're just not dealing with what I'm saying and you've been purposefully sneaky and then even after I'm willing to let it go, you have to bring it up as if I'm the one in fault here, and have ergo forced me to show you're own mistakes here and the complete lack of a will in any direction of a question we haven't already trotted over.

I'VE ALREADY EXPLAINED PLATO'S USE OF THE DIALOGUE FORM SPECIFICALLY IN RELATION TO THE MENO (though obviously an analysis on the dialogue on the whole would be very different), JUST READ MY POSTS A LITTLE CLOSER.

Do you seriously think Plato is not also saying something about the nature of the philosopher in the Meno than just using philosophy?
You'll reply
>I'm not saying that! But the dialogue as helping one understand the ideas in the argument doesn't succeed.

>>17050247
>reee reee capslock
>no you just don't get how brilliant Meno is

You vaguely suggested that the use of dialogue made it good because it gave insight into the nature of the philosopher and because it has certain artistic benefits

I disagreed and said I don't think those points make it good.

You seem to be very mad about this because you assume your posts were very insightful and valuable and you are feeling hurt because I apparently didn't 'get' them. While I appreciate any effortpost (your last one aside, which seems to show some deeper psychological issues), I simply disagree that the form in which Plato chose to write Meno makes it good, or that it displays some kind of brilliance. It's fine.

I suggest you take your medication and have sex posthaste

>>17046019
Some could, but truth is, scholars are undecided. I think the Socratic and Middle dialogues are very beautiful, if read aloud.

>>17050282
>haha, you're just wrong and insane! Even though I said explain what you disagree with or don't und
Great argument retard. You haven't even bothered to make a reply to any of the continuing content from the start in this post, where I at least salvaged a proper reply from simply the urge to point out your complete inability to understand basic concepts, and a complete disingenuity too-- whereas you have only given into that urge not to at least attempt to make things clearer (for what you consider) the dumber party. You mention something in which I brought up as a reply, and say that you're "not saying it's true or false" and then use a completely unrelated something for your point, to produce a completely unrelated point. In one case, to evade that you didn't understand the difference between the evaluation of the dialogue-method in the Meno, which naturally branches off into discussing the rest of Plato's dialogues, and the evaluation of the content of the dialogue Meno.

>You vaguely suggested that the use of dialogue made it good because it gave insight into the nature of the philosopher and because it has certain artistic benefits
>I disagreed and said I don't think those points make it good.
No you didn't, actually never in your post history have you said this or anything with the same meaning. Show me one example. You instead just ignored my points which are so much higher than yours, and only stated one petite, pea-brain framing of the dialogue and called it a day.

You actually said that you weren't rejecting those other points of evaluation which make the dialogue good or bad, but suddenly just jumped onto a completely random evaluation, which was "the dialogue-form in the Meno exists to help one better understand the ideas which could just as easily be set down in a treatise," said the Meno failed in achieving this, and therefore decided it was bad.

You don't listen to reason, and through my compassion I have made myself look like an idiot, go continue proliferating with your opinionations and never receive help again!

>>17050378
>No you didn't, actually never in your post history have you said this or anything with the same meaning
>Show me one example

Here you go
>>17050124
In this post I disagree with both points I mentioned in this post >>17050282, namely that the fact that it's a dialogue doesn't make it good, nor does it hold additional artistic value for that reason

>go continue proliferating with your opinionations and never receive help again!

I'm not the one writing big blocks of angry text at a stranger who politely disagrees with you anon, perhaps you are the one who needs help

If you like Meno that's fine, but please contain your autism if someone doesn't agree that it's amazing and important and special. It's not awful but I don't think it's particularly special or that the dialogue format adds anything to it.

Feel free to write your own dialogue where a featureless character talks to Not You and you tell him how amazing Meno is, and he agrees enthusiastically with you without questioning it. It would be very much in the spirit of Meno

OP here, just awake...

>>17050623

>>17046019
I asked this question to a Platonic scholar in my uni and he told me that there is no evidence of the dialogues having ever been performed (not even in private) in antiquity. From what we know, people in the Academy read them as books.

I'll add, even if we wanted to do so for the sake of accessibility, this plan would downright fail for all Plato's later dialogues. Imagine staging Laws as a play: it would be way more confusing and boring than reading it.

>>17050753
Well obviously not all of the dialogues. But some of the more accessible and dramatic ones.

The Socratic dialogues were more what I had in mind, they have a very dramatic and ironic tone and could be represented well with a myriad of dramatic tropes.

bump

>>17046019
Imagine somebody performing the Laws

>>17052891
Boring comment. Shut the fuck up

>>17052891
>Oooh imagine someone performing the laws heuhuehue

Didn't the ancient Greeks sit down and read them out loud? I don't feel like adding one or two people to act out an occasional rebuttal or a "you're so right Socrates" would be very useful.

>>17052962
Well, again this is depending on the dialogue. Especially the more dramatic, earlier Socratic ones.